Pence should veto energy bill

Indiana has, for many years, wrestled with the question of what policy, if any, to pursue to advance new, alternative visions of how we deal with waste, move around and grow our food. Fortunately, we’ve seen some tangible signs of progress in the Indiana General Assembly with respect to recycling, mass transit and local food systems.

But the positive changes that we’re seeing in these areas stand in contrast to the general approach toward, and major changes related to, Indiana energy legislation. In this realm, we see hallmarks of last century’s politics: respectful, well prepared stakeholders don’t have equal access to key lawmakers nor do they have equal time to review complex legislation. And most concerning of all, there’s an unhealthy, disproportionate influence by one specific group — Indiana’s monopoly electric utilities — in shaping the end result of public policy.

Consider the double standard afforded monopoly-utility-sponsored bills and those championed by public interest organizations — including those carefully tested in multiple other states.

The House Utilities Committee chair, for example, refused to allow a hearing on an energy-efficiency financing “PACE” bill that has enjoyed strong support in conservative states for its effectiveness in cutting energy costs. He said it hadn’t been carefully vetted by all parties.

In contrast, there’s a controversial energy bill (SB 560), pushed by the electric power lobby, that will reduce regulatory scrutiny, and accelerate recovery, of billion-dollar transmission investments. It took just a single legislative session to become law.

This legislative session, our state’s monopoly utilities, while disavowing their intentions in the media, are aggressively working to end Indiana’s ambitious, mandatory energy-efficiency program — a program that took years to develop and may literally take just three weeks to kill. The backers of this legislation, SB 340, will characterize this effort as a “moratorium” or a “pause” in a program advanced under Gov. Mitch Daniels. But, there is little doubt that they seek to eliminate this far-sighted program aimed at cutting energy waste and saving consumers money and replace it with a voluntary program run by the very monopoly utilities that have little financial incentive to run it at the pace and scale of the current program.

Despite the sweeping nature of SB 340, the core part of the bill was advanced outside of the committee process, allowing no opportunity for public testimony, a troubling approach to policymaking that exemplifies why many civic-minded Hoosiers are turned off by politics.

And yet the politically easier path for Gov. Mike Pence would be to sign the bill. After all, why go against the legislators who overwhelmingly voted for it? Why be at odds with Indiana’s power companies? Why not go into the 2014 elections telling the public that you’d helped cut their energy bills (when ironically the likely alternative won’t yield energy savings of the same magnitude)? Why not say that you’re advancing a new approach to energy efficiency (when it will likely end up being a reinvention of the wheel?)

But an act of great leadership would be for the governor to veto SB 340 — to send a signal that SB 340 has hallmarks of bad public policy-making, most especially a rush to stop a far-sighted initiative before it has undergone careful, even-handed review.

Gov. Pence has an opportunity to set a new tone for how energy policy is made in Indiana. The governor has begun to send a signal of reform by inviting a diversity of voices to provide input into the formulation of his energy plan. But when it comes to reform-minded public policy, the rubber truly meets the road with legislation. To make good on creating a new era for energy policy in Indiana, Gov. Pence ought to veto SB 340. The prospects for Indiana’s clean-energy sector will be brighter with such a wise choice.

Jesse Kharbanda is the executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, a statewide organization committed to solutions that improve the economy and the environment.